The Ultimate Super-sized XXL Marriage Thread Plus

[Gabriela]

20 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Sponsa, 

you are quite wrong again another radical sanation. Please visit the link

 

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-can-i-do-about-my-invalid-marriage

Wait. Aren't you the person who just dissed making judgments on whether we can even attend a wedding by consulting "wwwDOTlaymancatholicpolice"? Your link is to a question answered by "Catholic Answers Staff", and on the basis of that, you're telling a canon lawyer she's wrong?

@dUSt: Can we get a "Church Scholar" tag for Sponsa? I really think it'd help in situations like this.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Gabriela

[Maggyie]

Sponsa I think you are confusing sanation with con validation. 

Sanation is retroactive. 

And doesn't require a second ceremony. The first one is now valid. 

Urgh sorry it keeps merging my replies!

Edited June 21, 2016 by Maggyie

[Anomaly]

At this point it's just a troll war.  

Whether Sponsa the Internet persona is a canon lawyer, and if so, actually competent, is beyond my ken.  

It is a given that identitying invalid marriages as fake and claiming the Church has a blanket admonition that Catholics are forbidden to attend suspected invalid weddings is a bit inaccurate and needlessly harsh and inflammatory.   That was potentially needlessly hurtful towards a person I happen to like, or to a reader in a similar situation.  You can "lawyerly" nit pick and equivocate what was said and intended if it makes you feel better about what was posted, especially if you just need to make the atheist look bad.  I'm okay with that.  The prior posts are what they are and say what was said.  

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

16 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Sponsa I think you are confusing sanation with con validation. 

Sanation is retroactive. 

And doesn't require a second ceremony. The first one is now valid.

I did actually note that sanation was retroactive. 

I still stand by what I said, in that pastorally and practically (at least in the U.S.A.), for a Catholic couple who knowingly and willing chooses to marry outside the Church and then eventually has a conversion experience and wishes to reconcile with the Church, generally a radical sanation wouldn't be the way such a situation would be reconciled. Usually, the couple would actually exchange consent again in a "second" wedding---though this might be in a very quiet, low-key ceremony. 

But my wider point is, just because a radical sanation is possible in some circumstances, doesn't mean that a currently invalid marriage can be "sort of valid." You can't presume that a wedding known to be invalid in 2016 might actually have some element of validity because of the potential for MAYBE receiving a radical sanation sometime in the distant future.

5 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

It is a given that identitying invalid marriages as fake

Invalid marriages are not valid, full stop. Invalid = not real; not real = fake. This is not meant as a personal criticism of anyone, it's just an attempt to accurately describe the situation.

6 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

claiming the Church has a blanket admonition that Catholics are forbidden to attend suspected invalid weddings

I don't think anyone is claiming this. I'm certainly not.

All I'm arguing is that there that choosing not to attend an invalid wedding is a very legitimate choice for a Catholic to make, and it can be the result of a loving, prayerful discernment. 

[Maggyie]

Right, there is no teaching either way. But the possibility of sanation or convalidation is something you can take into account when discerning if attending or not attending better accomplishes the end of evangelizing the couple. If a sanation or convalidation would be impossible (like in Mihil's scenario where he describes a previous bond existing) that's something else to consider. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Retroactivly validating a marriage---which is basically what a sanation is---isn't the same thing as saying that an invalid marriage was somehow valid in the period of time before it was actually validated.

Re-reading this, I can see where it could be confusing. 

Yes, a radical sanation is retroactive, which means that post-sanation, we could say that the marriage was "valid all along."

BUT, during the period of time while you are waiting for a sanation that may or may not be granted, you can't say "this marriage is already valid." If it was already valid in the ordinary sense of the term, you wouldn't be seeking a sanation in the first place.

We definitely can't say that a marriage is valid (or even "sort of valid") because we are secretly entertaining the hope that maybe one day the couple might decide to seek a sanation. 

It sort of like how a couple seeking a declaration of nullity needs to behave as if they are married---i.e., they can't seek to marry anyone else---until and if their "annulment" is actually granted, even though a declaration of nullity means that the couple was never truly married in the first place.

5 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Right, there is no teaching either way. But the possibility of sanation or convalidation is something you can take into account when discerning if attending or not attending better accomplishes the end of evangelizing the couple. If a sanation or convalidation would be impossible (like in Mihil's scenario where he describes a previous bond existing) that's something else to consider. 

True, and this is a good point. 

While not actually disagreeing with you here, I still think that in discerning whether or not to attend an invalid wedding, we should still be realistic about the nature of an invalid marriage. As in, it's one thing to attend with the thought that: "This civil wedding is probably a real first step towards a valid marriage and the couple's full reconciliation with the Church"; and quite another to attend while thinking: "Well, a sanation/convalidation might be a theoretical possibility at some point, so I suppose there's no harm in telling myself that this wedding is already kind of valid-ish..."

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

We definitely can't say that a marriage is valid (or even "sort of valid") because we are secretly entertaining the hope that maybe one day the couple might decide to seek a sanation.....................

..................While not actually disagreeing with you here, I still think that in discerning whether or not to attend an invalid wedding, we should still be realistic about the nature of an invalid marriage. As in, it's one thing to attend with the thought that: "This civil wedding is probably a real first step towards a valid marriage and the couple's full reconciliation with the Church"; and quite another to attend while thinking: "Well, a sanation/convalidation might be a theoretical possibility at some point, so I suppose there's no harm in telling myself that this wedding is already kind of valid-ish..."

 

 

A Catholic who might attend a presumed invalid marriage with the hope and prayer that somewhere ahead in time the couple would respond to Grace and remedy the situation is not at all of necessity any sort of presuming.  And I am not stating at all that that prayer and hope is the basis of their attending the ceremony.  Rather the reason for attending is in another context entirely.

However, "this wedding is already kind of valid-sh", would be quite a quite wrongful assuming to say the least.  Also "This civil wedding is probably a real first step towards a valid marriage and the couple's full reconciliation with the Church"; is another quite incorrect assumption and nothing, of course, of any sort of "real first step" of necessity at all. 

Both trains of thought or examples are quite incorrect and simply different trains of thought and both are nonsensical.

The examples quoted by Sponsa are only (remote?) potentials......I think......since I cannot recall anyone in this thread making statements anywhere near the two examples given and am presuming they were stated for the purposes of "intellectual argument".

______

In most all I have read (if not indeed all) from sound Catholic sources on a (baptised Catholic) couple marrying in a civil ceremony or in a presumed invalid marriage, it is that latter term that is consistently used by those sources:  i.e. "presumed invalid" - and that says mountains.  Reading some of the posts into this thread the words used to describe a presumed invalid marriage are inflammatory (saying mountains) and do indicate the bias of author. (I am very much aware of my own bias.....I think and hope!........although sometimes it might take control without permission)

Edited June 21, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

 

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

The baptized Catholic cannot pretend any invalid marriage never existed, as if it was just a sexual relationship, and go to confession and marry a nice Catholic virgin the same day.

4 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

 

Well, maybe not in the same day...but basically, yes, you more or less can do this.

Provided that all obligations of material support are met for any dependents that may have resulted from a civil union, a Catholic who was married invalid in a civil ceremony CAN essentially just walk away from the civil union. 

If the baptized Catholic has been married in a civil ceremony then the marriage is valid in civil law but presumed invalid in Catholic Law.  Therefore, the Catholic cannot simply walk away from the marriage and marry a Catholic on the same day.........not even in the eyes of The Church (I think ?)......Romans Chapter 13 Vatican Bible "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.  2Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.  (This does take up what Jesus said: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's")

And I found this in the CCC "2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: ⁴³ "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution.... Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God." ⁴⁴ Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community."

I also found the following: (Vatican Bible "The New American Bible") I Pet 2:13, 16.

⁸" Be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the approval of those who do good.For it is the will of God that by doing good you may silence the ignorance of foolish people.Be free, yet without using freedom as a pretext for evil, but as slaves of God. 17 Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the king."

Edited June 21, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

I wonder too if a Catholic can just walk away from a presumed invalid marriage without any sort of permission to do so from a Church hierarchy on some level.  I think (unsure) that there needs to be some sort of official advice that the presumed invalid marriage is now actually invalid (and no longer presumed), meaning the Catholic can then just walk away from the marriage i.e. separation.  In Australian Law after a certain period, to just abandon a valid marriage in civil law becomes "abandonment" and actual grounds for divorce in civil law.  Of course, divorce and remarriage is forbidden in all instances by Church Law.  Once can be divorced, but never remarry.

If one's marriage is declared actually invalid by The Church and under Church Law but yet valid in civil law, then I do wonder if the Catholic does have some sort of moral obligation towards his or her partner who, in good faith, married the Catholic in a civil ceremony and fully intended and invested in the vow "until death do us part"???

PS   My application for annulment from The Church required that I must be divorced in civil law, which my 'husband' had proceeded with anyway and successfully i.e. he divorced me civilly.  I do understand the reasons for the demand for divorce prior to proceeding with the annulment process (I asked why), but that is another subject entirely.

"Once can be divorced, but never remarry." in the first paragraph should read "One can be divorced, but never remarry"

[Sponsa-Christi]

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

If the baptized Catholic has been married in a civil ceremony then the marriage is valid in civil law but presumed invalid in Catholic Law.

If a Catholic marries in a non-Catholic ceremony without a dispensation, the marriage is not presumed to be invalid, it's KNOWN to be invalid.

This is different from situation where there might be a trial for nullity. If someone suspects that their marriage might be invalid because of some defect of consent or intention, they can request that the Church investigate their case in a nullity trial. However, in situations where canonical form (i.e., a Catholic wedding ceremony) is lacking, no investigation is even needed because the facts of the case are already obvious. 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

If a Catholic marries in a non-Catholic ceremony without a dispensation, the marriage is not presumed to be invalid, it's KNOWN to be invalid.

This is different from situation where there might be a trial for nullity. If someone suspects that their marriage might be invalid because of some defect of consent or intention, they can request that the Church investigate their case in a nullity trial. However, in situations where canonical form (i.e., a Catholic wedding ceremony) is lacking, no investigation is even needed because the facts of the case are already obvious. 

My bad and my second bad today with a pile of ironing to be done urgently for client and with a vet appointment later today...........and they are not good either in my book!

  I'm not disagreeing with you, Sponsa, because the more I read the more confused I get but no time to quote some confusing matters from both EWTN and also the USCCB website on mixed marriages and Nuptial Mass or wedding Mass permissions for mixed marriages. Have noted the sites however and will return at some point.  Sites addresses: https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MIXED.TXT and http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/interfaith-marriages/

However, despite what the above sites state, no such statements at all from our Australian Catholic bishops that I could find.

A query only :  If a Catholic marries a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic ceremony and did not know that they could do so with a dispensation, although they knew in a vague sort of way (never been well educated in the Faith) that marrying outside The Church was wrong, is the marriage still not valid rather than presumed not valid?  Surely the disposition of the Catholic would speak to the issue of possible "presumed of invalid" - or is that also incorrect?

It is a confusing issue for sure and on such an important subject.

Were I considering marriage outside The Church and after what I have recently read, I would be asking advice from my bishop, rather than my pp I think.  I would probably be told to refer to my pp - and if so, I would first be consulting a canon lawyer who is also a priest and hopefully armed with sound and correct information when I consulted my pp as instructed.

I am sure that I signed nothing before I married, but my fiancé had to do so.

All the sites I read have stated that it is the Catholic who must sign - not the non Catholic.

I remember that it was my fiancé (non Catholic) who had to sign because he refused to do so and so I stated that we could not get married.  He eventually said he would sign but that it meant nothing to him.....later that is after the marriage.

[HisChildForever]

Barbara, it used to be that the non-Catholic party had to sign. Now it is on the Catholic. The non-Catholic just has to understand the Catholic's responsibilities when it comes to practicing the faith and raising children. It makes more sense this way, in my opinion.

[Sponsa-Christi]

4 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

A query only :  If a Catholic marries a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic ceremony and did not know that they could do so with a dispensation, although they knew in a vague sort of way (never been well educated in the Faith) that marrying outside The Church was wrong, is the marriage still not valid rather than presumed not valid?  Surely the disposition of the Catholic would speak to the issue of possible "presumed of invalid" - or is that also incorrect?

If a Catholic marries in a non-Catholic ceremony without a dispensation, then the marriage is known to be invalid, full stop.

If the Catholic party only had a vague sense that this was something frowned upon, but didn't realize that this made the marriage invalid---then the marriage is still invalid, although the Catholic party might be less culpable due to their lack of understanding (e.g., subjectively they might be guilty of a venial rather than a mortal sin).

If the Catholic party didn't realize that it was possible to get a dispensation to marry validly outside the Church, then the marriage is still known to be invalid. 

If a Catholic somehow had no idea that marrying outside a Catholic ceremony was a problem, then they MIGHT be subjectively innocent of any sin (although one might ask why they didn't take more trouble. to learn about the faith on their own). However, the marriage is still known to be invalid. 

Basically, there aren't any scenarios when the Church would presume a marriage to be invalid. We might KNOW a marriage is invalid in certain circumstances, such as when canonical form isn't followed or after a declaration of nullity is issued. Individuals might SUSPECT that a marriage is invalid if they feel they have a case for a nullity trial.

But when the Church is presuming anything, it's presuming the validity of marriages where the canonical form is properly observed. That is, if everything is outwardly in order (i.e., a Catholic was either married in a Catholic ceremony or had a dispensation), the Church presumes the marriage is valid until it's proven otherwise. 

 

21 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Were I considering marriage outside The Church and after what I have recently read, I would be asking advice from my bishop, rather than my pp I think.  I would probably be told to refer to my pp - and if so, I would first be consulting a canon lawyer who is also a priest and hopefully armed with sound and correct information when I consulted my pp as instructed.

Not to be mean, but why would any good Catholic consider marriage outside the Church? Any Catholic thinking of marrying in any way at all really should be talking to their pp in any case.

If there was a special circumstance where marrying in a non-Catholic ceremony has some sort of pastoral advantage---like, you were marrying a Jew or a Muslim whose family was very opposed to the union---then a decent pp would certainly help you get the proper dispensations from the bishop.

That being said, though, it is the Church's very strong preference that Catholics marry other Catholics in a Catholic ceremony. If you're building a life with someone, it's only sensible to have a shared faith as the foundation of the union. 

[Guest]

Thank you, Sponsa (no props left just now).

It is very difficult in the extreme, I know, if one is Catholic and has fallen in love with a non Catholic who is saying all the right things to one and wants seemingly so much to marry.  I fell in love again and vv after my annulment but decided (with tremendous heartbreak and over a really long period far more than a year if I recall) in favour of private vows and ceased all contact with him though he begged me not to do so and almost 'stalked' me for a long time but I refused any and all attempts at contact. It broke my heart very literally. He was Catholic though not practising.  I still think of that man (now dec'd) with real appreciation to God for the type of person that he was.  I still love that man on a certain level.  He developed cancer which affected his ability to walk and eventually committed suicide (nothing to do with me, rather his inability to walk unaided).

Having been through all that including the pain of annulment (and to my children) no way would I ever consider marriage again without talking to a priest over a period, whether the man be Catholic or not - and this would be my strong advice to any person who asked me my opinion on the subject of Catholicism and marriage.  I have heard positive and negative reports about pre Cana courses and therefore I cannot comment.   Initially, my children thought that the annulment meant that they were born (one is a foster son) out of wedlock until once our relationship was restored in their twenties- my ex and family turned them against me due to mental illness and other factors including Catholicism (as human institution only) - when I was able to explain to them what the annulment actually meant for them and for and to me - and their Dad, with whom I now maintain a friendly type of relationship .  He remarried probably 20 years ago now and I am quite friendly with his wife nowadays - both non Catholic.  At the time, my children were too young not to be influenced by close and therefore powerful adults in their lives on the subject of mental illness as we now understand it - not back then culturally including in Catholic culture generally speaking.

Thankfully and gratefully, I got to know a priest religious and theologian who set me straight on so very much.

Please excuse me as no offence whatsoever is intended in the slightest- rather to state something important I think.   I think that one has to have fallen in love and know the agony of needing to refuse marriage to understand with absolute compassion, understanding and empathy of falling in love with a non Catholic knowing that ideally one is best to marry a faithful Catholic.  I do not think that those who have been lifelong celibates can fully grasp this if they have never fallen in love, let alone been married 15years with an active intimate life and (falsely) under the impression they were happily married.........not the actual extreme emotional content anyway coupled with the overwhelming psychological and indeed spiritual conflict.  I had a verbal 'tackle' with a Church Monsignor (priest) on this point (he was on the Annulment Tribunal) and eventually he conceded because he was a lifelong celibate and wanted to sprout Church Law at me full stop.  Of course, I desire and strive to live according to all Church teachings and laws and always have..........but at times the human element could make it extremely difficult indeed I now know very well indeed.  In fact, I never would have married my husband, but for my pp who intervened on his behalf and I took my pp's advice being none the wiser back then - i.e. "Yes, Father - how high, Father" in absolute sincerity and obedience to the letter.  Back in my Catholic home and education in my teens we were told to look upon our priests as Jesus walking on earth.

The above is certainly only my experience and therefore limited not general - but I certainly can compassionately look upon and embrace with empathy anyone with anything remotely similar.....reminds me of a saying of my dear Dad (dec'd) "Life is long and full of pitfalls" (similar to"mourning and weeping in this valley of tears" Hail Holy Queen prayer)

1 hour ago, HisChildForever said:

Barbara, it used to be that the non-Catholic party had to sign. Now it is on the Catholic. The non-Catholic just has to understand the Catholic's responsibilities when it comes to practicing the faith and raising children. It makes more sense this way, in my opinion.

 

Thanks, HCF! No props left just now.

 I really was wondering on the point since my dispensation came through insofar as I am aware through my Archbishop back then.  I read in recent research that the signed document by a Catholic had to be submitted to him at the time of requesting a dispensation.  But I didn't sign anything, but my fiancé had to do so. Now I know I had been told some things by my pp and priest who married me which were not quite correct theologically.  Hence I went into marriage with some 'wacky' type of information. Years down the line and while married, I consulted another priest and he confirmed what my pp had told me, as I was beginning to doubt things, to not understand. Hence I thought my doubts and not understanding were unfounded.

Edited June 22, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

I'm going to add this because I think it is some importance too.

I usually make my Easter Confession a reflection over the past year.  Not long before my serious psychotic bipolar episodes ceased though I did not realise then it would be ongoing in its' absence, I made my Easter Confession to a visiting priest I did not know who was hearing Confessions (unusually) before and after Mass too.  As I had been instructed I first stated I had a mental illness and had also made private vows:

It went like this:

"What on earth did you do that for?" (his literal statement)

"What Father?"

"Make private vows and by the way I have psychiatric treatment regularly too."

"I had advice first Father and from a priest who knew me well."

"And what would you do if you fell in love?" (I didn't tell him I had done so already and chosen my private vows)

Quote

My reply was like this: "It seems to me, Father, that to fall in love is a great gift of God since God is Love.  I would not know just by reflection what I would do but I know I would be in tremendous conflict on all levels."

"Mmmm" but no other comment.

I then went on to make my Confession.

At the end of my Confession, absolution & Penance, Father added "Well you seem to have your head screwed on to me. God bless and go in Peace" (literally - some things not even advanced age and breaking down brain cells can cause one to forget)

I had a giggle after and shared with my friend from next door who used to take me and bring me home from Sunday Mass and said to him after relating in confidence what had happened in the Confessional. Laughing I said: "What do you think?  Maybe we are both crazy!"  My pal knows my journey in full. He is now married in the Church - and his wife has now converted to Catholicism.  What a great day it was!!! They have a son now too.  They are very faithful Catholics and a beautiful family. We maintain contact and he and his wife and son were at my Home Mass to renew private life vows.

When I first met my pal next door, he was only 15yrs old.  I was out watering the garden and had no idea they were Catholics though not practising.  He came up to me and said very shyly (now he is the most outspoken person I know) "You go to Mass on Sunday, don't you".  I replied in the affirmative and then I used to walk to Mass and back.  "Could I come with you, I am saving for a car and we could go together".  I was delighted.  What a wonderful man he has grown into!

A funny story about him.  He is very money savvy and is about to purchase another house for investment.  When he was about 6 years old, his Dad told me that he had planted 5cents in the back garden to see if he could grow a money tree, because they were a poor family and his Dad was always saying "I don't have a money tree out the back".  I love that story.  Eventually after Mass I would join the family (his Mum and Dad and him) and we would have a cooked breakfast of bacon and eggs..........and the conversation was always about Catholicism.  Our parish had him pegged for the priesthood - me too actually, he was so devout and committed.  Then one day at Mass someone came up to me a little shocked and horrified "I saw ........... the other night kissing a girl out the front of his home."  That girl is now his wife and mother of his son.

They are still a very devout and totally committed practising Catholic family.  His Mum and Dad deceased.

Edited June 22, 2016 by BarbaraTherese